The 1986 Ford Taurus was an automotive industry revolution. Ford took car design years into the future with its aerodynamic family car that instantly made most other cars look a decade old. For most enthusiasts, the best version of the Taurus was the hot version SHO, with its Yamaha-designed V6 and snickety manual transmission. But there is another enthusiast version of the Taurus, one that perhaps most people have forgotten about. For just two years, Ford was willing to sell you a Taurus station wagon with a fun five-speed manual transmission. It was a dream, except for one little problem.
Some of the most exciting moments in automotive history involve those times when an automaker so brilliantly captures lightning in a bottle. The original Ford Mustang was one of those moments; so was the first Chevrolet Corvette. Move forward in time, and you’ll find great ideas like the Mazda MX-5 Miata, the second-generation Dodge Ram, and the Porsche Cayenne. The Ford Taurus was one of those vehicles, and it remains one of the greatest product launches in product history. To understand where I’m coming from, let’s go back to the 1980s.
The decade opens up at the tail end of the so-called Malaise Era. The multiple oil crises of the 1970s had forced a sort of automotive industry reset. Sheer size and power were substituted for fuel economy and lighter weights. The government wanted automakers to clean up their tailpipes and make their cars safer. The cars of the era became rather square while emissions equipment and the change to SAE net ratings choked engines of their once-impressive power numbers. This was a time when even Chevrolet’s mighty Corvette struggled to break 200 horsepower.
Ford broke into the new decade with product lines like the Fairmont, Granada, and LTD, which were perfectly adequate family cars, but weren’t exactly lighting up the marketplace. Luckily, Ford had aces up its sleeve. The Escort showed the world the benefits of a “world car.” The Tempo took Ford’s compacts into the future. But since 1981, Ford had something bigger, better, and more bombastic in the works. The Taurus would become a revolution, a sensation, and the subject of case studies for decades to come.
But there is one variant of the Taurus that doesn’t get much airtime nowadays, and it’s the version that was a regular car, but a bit more fun. That’s the Taurus MT-5, a car that some younger enthusiasts might not even know about.
The Car Designed To Be Different
In designing the Taurus, Ford dusted off the world car playbook that led to the Escort. Instead of having design and engineering teams working on their own projects by themselves, everyone worked together. The March 1985 issue of MotorTrend talks about some of the development:
The Taurus, to debut in September 1985, is an important vehicle for FoMoCo, in that it represents a major corporate commitment to an unconventional, forward-thinking design concept in a mass-market car. For all its leading-edge-of-technology intentions, the Taurus (and sister ship, Mercury Sable) is anything but an enthusiast’s special interest vehicle. Rather, it is aimed point-blank at mainstream middle America. The Heartland. The bread and butter of the Motown Manufacturing Mentality. Originally conceived as an enlightened substitute for the company’s land yacht LTD, Grand Marquis, and Lincoln, the Taurus series will be marketed (in 4-door sedan and station wagon models) as more alternative than replacement, due to the recent upswing in sales of Ford’s full-size traditionals. It is a from-the-ground-up new car with an all-new V-6 engine, a fully independent suspension, and aero styling that promises to deliver the lowest coefficient of drag (Cd) of any American sedan.
[…]
An interesting postscript to the Taurus powertrain development was the collaboration between Engine Engineering and Design Studio departments to produce cosmetically correct engine compartment aesthetics. That’s right; cosmetically correct. The approach, which will be used on all of Ford’s future new-car programs, was to make an under-the-hood statement—a simplified, refined, machined look with heavy emphasis on color and contrast. The routing of electrical, vacuum, and spark plug lines, air cleaner layout, and rocker cover and throttle body design changes were all prompted by the Design Center’s approach to creating a cleaner, more accessible (more serviceable) engine compartment. (Cosmetic design changes to the throttle body housing actually resulted in a more efficient airflow path.)
[…]
Ford suspension/chassis engineers freely admit that the Taurus project target vehicle was the Audi 5000—regarded as one of the best-handling cars in its class. Although the Taurus represents an impressive step toward creating a car with that fine balance of comfort and stability, it has not yet reached a state of refinement for favorable comparisons with full-size Audis and BMWs. Typical of built-in-Detroit full-size sedans, the Taurus demonstrated a penchant to wallow on rebound over pockmarked and pot-holed asphalt. Driving leisurely with subtle, less than demanding driver input, the Taurus provided quiet, compliant, deceptively solid footing. Asked to hustle through tight esses, however, where limited body roll and predictable transient response are important, it becomes apparent how deeply the Taurus’ family car roots run. Comfortable, yes. True World-Class sport sedan handling? Not quite yet.
In its retrospective, Hemmings noted that Ford also took a different approach to figuring out how to fill out the Taurus. In the past, automakers would churn out vehicles with features that they thought buyers would like. This time, Ford asked potential customers what they were wanting to see in their next family car. The work put into making the Taurus right was staggering, and no detail was too small to obsess over.
As Thomas wrote in 2024, famed Ford head designer Jack Telnack even fought to ensure his car did not have a traditional grille. Marketing and sales demanded that the Taurus have a real grille, and promotional images and brochures were even created featuring the car with a traditional grille. But Telnack just couldn’t let that slide. The Taurus wasn’t just any other car, and it couldn’t look like any other car. Bill Ford agreed that such an aerodynamic car couldn’t be marred with a grille.
Hemmings continues about the car’s development:
[T]he research into the car’s development went so far as to examine variables like insurance cost, ease of repair and even advanced ergonomics for the driver. Engineering teams ripped apart hundreds of cars from competitive brands, reverse engineering each one to determine the best practices employed by various manufacturers. What allowed for this extensive research and development was the budget set aside for the Taurus: At $3.5 billion, it was the largest in Ford’s history. For comparison, a mere $870 million had been allocated for the development of the Ford Fiesta subcompact.
Knowing that the car’s launch would be as important as its development, Ford spared no expense in a mid-1985 Hollywood premiere (held at MGM Studios Soundstage 85) that featured space themes to highlight the futuristic nature of the car. Its ovoid shape was a huge departure from the norm of the day, and critics weren’t sure how to react. Chrysler (and even some Ford executives) thought that the car’s bold, grille-less styling had gone too far, and predicted that the Taurus would be a huge failure for the automaker when it hit the road at year end. To hedge its bet, Ford continued to produce the Fox platform LTD, but the die had been cast: If the Taurus turned out to be a failure, the billions spent on its development would have dragged the company into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Like A Spaceship On The Ground
All of this work paid off. When the Taurus entered production in late 1985 for the 1986 model year, it blew both the public and the motoring press away. The Taurus wasn’t just a family sedan. It looked like a road-hugging spaceship that safely and efficiently carried families to their destinations. This was a car with flush composite headlights, flush door handles, doors with frames that cleanly wrapped into the roof, and wheels pushed to the perimeter of the chassis. The Taurus was also pretty slick for a car of its day with a drag coefficient of 0.32.
It wasn’t just a smooth ride, either. At launch, buyers were able to nab a Taurus with either a 2.5-liter High Swirl Combustion (HSC) inline-four (which was first seen in the Tempo as a 2.3-liter four) with 88 ponies in the stable, or a 3.0-liter Vulcan V6 with 140 thoroughbreds on tap. Bolted to these engines was either a three-speed ATX automatic or a five-speed manual.
Later, the HSC engine would see a power bump to 105 horses, the AXOD four-speed automatic would become available, and in the final years of the first-gen Taurus, Ford’s 3.8-liter Essex V6 would make an appearance. Of course, nobody can forget the hot and fast 1989 Taurus SHO and its 7,000 RPM redline 3.0 V6 that got breathed on by Yamaha.
Now, on just a cursory glance at a modern article about the Taurus, it would be easy to draw a conclusion that the SHO and its Mazda-built MTX-IV five-speed manual transaxle was the only Taurus to have a choose-your-own-adventure transmission. However, for just three model years (only two for the wagon), there was one more version of the Taurus that could be considered to be an enthusiast special. Well, sort of.
The Lesser-Known Manual Taurus
When the Taurus launched for the 1986 model year, it was offered in a handful of trim levels, starting with the base model L ($10,071 or $30,683 in 2026) and working its way up through the mid-range GL ($11,322 or $34,494 in 2026) and top-spec LX ($13,351 or $40,676 in 2026).
The L was fairly basic, featuring the 2.5-liter HSC four-cylinder with a three-speed automatic, 14-inch steel wheels with covers, a black louvered grille, a cloth bench seat, an AM mechanical radio, and a very basic instrument cluster with an analog speedometer surrounded by warning lights. Many of the options that were standard to higher models, like interval wipers, the V6, an electronic radio, a digital clock, tinted glass, a rear stabilizer bar, and bucket seats with a center console, were either options or simply unavailable to the L.
The GL was the first trim to come standard with V6 power, and it got niceties the L didn’t get. Then there was the LX, which ran through the garden with all of the aforementioned features, plus a power driver seat, dual illuminated visor mirrors with secondary sunvisors, cornering lights, a reclining passenger seat, and power windows, locks, and mirrors. The LX was also the only trim to get air conditioning standard. The options list was pretty tall, even for the LX, and included bits like a digital instrument cluster, a rear-facing third seat for wagons, leather seats, vinyl trim, cruise control, an instant-heat system for the windshield, and more.
But there was one trim level I left out, and that one was the $10,276 MT-5 ($31,307 in 2026). Placed above the L grade but below GL, the MT-5 was a sort of middle child with a few options picked and, most notably, a five-speed manual. A few luxury options the MT-5 had that the L didn’t were power mirrors, bucket seats, a “luxury steering wheel,” an electronic radio, a reclining passenger seat, the nicer grille, a digital clock, tinted glass, and interval wipers. Thankfully, Ford also gave the manual version a fully equipped analog instrument cluster with a tachometer and all.
Under the hood of the MT-5 was the 88 HP HSC four, and the transmission was a five-speed MTX-III. The MT-5 became available in April 1986 for the family-oriented enthusiast. Now, you might wonder why Ford even bothered to make such a car, considering that the early Taurus wasn’t exactly trying to light up the stoplight drags.
According to a period review from the Morning Call, some 300,000 imported cars with manual transmissions were sold in America in 1985. It only made sense for Ford to try to steal some of those sales. Of course, Ford couldn’t just toss a stick into the L and call it a day, because the enthusiast wants a little luxury to go with their fun driving experience.
One brochure said that the MT-5 was “A taste of performance. A touch of class.” Another called it “Driving fun.” Ford tried to sweeten the deal by selling the MT-5 with front and rear stabilizer bars as standard. In 1987, the MT-5 would become the second Taurus trim to come with air conditioning standard.
About As Spicy As A Bottle Of Water
Alright, so was there something special here? Well, that depends. Here’s what the Morning Call said:
The MT-5 proved to be an easy car to drive. Assuming that one can operate a manual transmission. Many people are frightened by a manual transmission and probably for good reason. But as manuals go, the MT-5’s was one of the easier to use. The gears were well defined and the clutch had a lot of built-in forgiveness. Handling was responsive and precise but not overly so. In other words, you didn’t have to think about it all the time and if you wanted to groove in and out of traffic or lay it on in the curves, there was more than enough suspension to handle it. The four-wheel independent suspension has MacPherson struts all around, gas-pressured shocks and fore and aft stabilizer bars. The test car also had the optional P205/65R15 tires, which no doubt helped things along.
Powering the MT-5, is a 2.5 liter/150 cubic inch four-cylinder with overhead valves, electronic fuel injection and a high-swirl and fast-burn combustion chamber design. The engine is rated at 92 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 132 foot pounds torque at 3,000 rpm. Now right up front this doesn’t sound like enough power to move the Taurus out of its own way. But surprisingly the MT-5 doesn’t have bad performance. To be sure, you’re not going to suffer from whiplash on a second to third shift or do you have to worry about smoking those front tires off when leaving the line. But you will be able to mix it up in traffic and run the expressways without worrying.
Some of the reasons for this are the excellent gearing on the five-speed manual and the relatively light weight of the car. Also, it has a big four- cylinder engine and does produce quite a bit of torque; torque is important when moving weight. The engine/transmission combination proved to be impressive for fuel mileage. The test car averaged 22 miles per gallon for city driving and 32 mpg over the highways. Regular unleaded was used. The test car was equipped with the optional extended range fuel tank (18.6 gallons, the standard tank measures 16 gallons), which as one can see would give it quite a driving range.
I checked the MotorTrend archives, and the first mention of the MT-5 that I could find was in October 1986 in only a very short paragraph that talks about models for 1987:
After spending a week in an MT-5 sedan, I came away pleased with its operation. The 5-speed MTX III works smoothly and without hangups, but the MT Golden Rule applies to this car: Anything can be made better with 50 more horsepower.
Most stories paint the MT-5 as being an improvement over the base L, a bit more fun to drive, and reliable, but the compliments seem to taper off around there. The sedan was only 2,863 pounds, but still had only 88 HP for motivation. Calling this engine “tepid” would probably be pretty accurate. Certainly, you probably wanted to refrain from challenging anything but compacts and diesels. In case you were wondering, the MT-5 was worse than the L in one way, and it’s that it wasn’t even offered with the option to upgrade to the V6.
One thing that the MT-5 had going for it was that Ford was willing to sell it to you in a wagon body. So the whole family, including those in the optional rear-facing third seat, could enjoy manual fun. Even the SHO wasn’t available as a wagon!
As you could probably imagine, the MT-5 didn’t exactly light the sales charts on fire. The wagon was available for 1986 and 1987, and if Marti reports from enthusiasts are correct, only 2,376 MT-5 wagons were sold in 1986, with 3,910 more finding homes in 1987. The sedan was around for one more year, but sadly, enthusiasts have only the production numbers for 1986. That year, Ford allegedly moved 20,011 Taurus MT-5 sedans, which is pretty neat!
Yet, the MT-5s are rare for Taurus. In 1986, Ford moved 236,362 Taurus vehicles in total. That number increased to 374,763 units for 1987 and 387,577 for 1989. Compared to the total production, the MT-5s were barely a blip on the radar. The MT-5 wagon’s apparent sales make the MT-5 sedan look like it was a decent seller.
It would seem that the MT-5 probably found itself stuck in an unfortunate position of not being attractive to the enthusiast buyer. Perhaps it was the fact that the Taurus was futuristic, but didn’t exactly scream “sports sedan” as the imports did. Perhaps it was the fact that the enthusiast special was given the weakest engine. Or perhaps it was just the fact that it was a family car that most people expected to see an automatic in. The original Ford Taurus itself would go on to become an automotive legend, one that still carries influence today. But the fact that Ford made a manual one that wasn’t the SHO is barely a footnote.
A Forgotten Special
The Ford Taurus MT-5 is also another example of rarity not exactly equaling value. If you can find one of these for sale, it’s almost certainly going to be well under $10,000. It just seems like, for the most part, the MT-5 was discontinued and forgotten, with only a small group of fans keeping survivors alive.
Despite all of that, I find myself enamored with the MT-5. Sure, it wasn’t fast, wasn’t particularly desirable, and was bypassed by even enthusiast buyers when it was new. Yet, Ford did something neat with this car. Ford took a regular, everyday car, and made it just a little bit more fun. I like to imagine that, back in the 1980s, someone’s parent had just a teensy bit of fun on the school run by rowing their own gears in the family MT-5.
So, from that angle, I think there should be more cars like this. I know that current manual take rates are so low that there’s little point in an automaker trying. I’d still be delighted to see a Chevrolet Trax or a Toyota Corolla slinging a manual. Or, heck, Ford could just bring back the Taurus, period.
Top graphic images: Ford
My parents were diehard manual transmission fans. I went to test drive an MT5 wagon when they were first released; it was hot garbage.
Fortunately, Audi was making a turbo quattro wagon at the time and it only came with a manual. Thanks to 60 Minutes, depreciation on Audis was horrible. I found a 6-month old turbo quattro wagon for 55% of its new price for my parents. They loved that car and racked up 200,000 miles before it succumbed to Michigan road salt.
The Taurus was when American car companies finally realized the 70s were over and actually tried to make a better car instead of whining about oil prices.
I swear everyone who gushes about the SHO never owned one or knows someone who did. I was so enamored by the Yamaha V6 and manual transmission that I ignored friends’ advice and got into the worst car I’ve ever owned. Absolute money pit, left me and friends and family and then-girlfriend stranded multiple times. One of my happiest moments was getting it started and running to drive it to the dealer for trade-in. Still have nightmares about that car,
So one person had a bad experience with one, that means they’re all shit?
Or, you got a lemon.
PS: I know someone who owns a beautiful 1st gen SHO. No problems outside of what you’d expect from a nearly 40 year old vehicle.
In what universe was the Fairmont considered perfectly adequate? Did you have to hire Dr. Strange to find it?
In the late 70’s, anything which was relatively affordable, didn’t rust to bits weeks/months after purchase, didn’t vapor lock when you tried to accelerate into traffic, didn’t fishtail under hard braking, and got better than single-digit MPG in town was considered perfectly adequate.
Not perfect, perfectly adequate. I’m unclear how perfectly adequate and merely adequate are different, but English is like that.
Maybe I’m some weirdo but I got sick of rowing my own gears a long time ago. The idea that driving a random station wagon or, say, a large U-Haul and it being a stick makes it “better”, is foreign to me.
Weirdo
No brown diesel manual wagon for you!
I feel like a well-matched manual transmission just amplifies a car. If it’s a great car, a manual of similar greatness will only make it greater. If it’s a penalty box, a manual transmission will accentuate the unpleasantness.
The throttle response, torque curve, sound and vibration are all made more noticeable when you dynamically interact with them, and when those are good qualities, a manual is a great way get more interaction. But when a car has an unpleasant engine, every shift is a chance for the engine to rudely remind you of its flaws. The same applies to sloppy mounts and bouncy suspension, every manual shift is a chance to heave and clunk.
I guess what I’m getting at is that you’re right in your conclusion, a manual doesn’t make any random family car or work truck better, but a well-sorted family car, like a BMW 325i sedan or a Civic Si hatch, is really enhanced by that third pedal. Newer drive-by-wire cars have been a bit hit or miss on that front with auto-blip and awkward emissions-conscious throttle response curves, but the ones that manage to be good are really good.
A manual transmission in a terrible car is sort of fun. You can try to optimize things, all that slow car fast stuff. The slush box in a terrible car takes away even the illusion of free will.
In a really good car, often the manual just points out that you’re not as good a driver as you wish you were.
I always like a manual in a slow car, like you said it lets you optimize and exercise the car as much as your skills allow. But in a *bad * car it’s a fun challenge if you’re borrowing the car, but a bit of a pain if you’ve gotta keep it for a while.
Mind you, my definition of a good includes anything with half-decent throttle response, a consistent clutch bite and dampers/mounts that work. I consider old VW’s excellent in that sense, their single-barrel carbs have only one personality and the hard-mounted transmission makes for a consistent shift, even if the feeling of the stick is vague.
The manuals I’ve driven that were bad were the ones with drive by wire algorithms that would “creatively interpret” my inputs and vague clutches with delay valves. If the system is going to ignore me, I’d rather not be involved in it.
I’ve sort of gotten used to automatic transmissions in cars, except for absent mindedly slamming on the brakes when I approach a red light when muscle memory takes over and I forget that there’s no clutch.
Trucks on the other hand, are awful when you’re trying to just nudge it a few inches, it’s like the damn thing has a big rubber band in the drive train.
The stupid creeping idle, and why the fuck do you still have to shift to reverse from park on the way to drive on some cars. Why was that ever a good idea?
Like I say it’s not as bad now, but in the days of carburetors automatic transmissions were such a fucking nightmare. You can still have the engine stopped turning over while you’re driving along at 60 miles an hour.
That said, I’m pretty fond of the transmission in my Prius. It just works. No trying to figure out what the right gear is.
Now excuse me while I yell at this offensive cloud.
“Like I say it’s not as bad now, but in the days of carburetors automatic transmissions were such a fucking nightmare.”
Well, you broke the internet with the dumbest fucking comment of the day.
Well you have obviously never accelerated into an intersection l, tired the throttle in, had the carb go full rich with the accelerator pump stalling the engine and coasting into traffic because you can’t start the car unless your foot in in the brake and the transmission is in park.
I’m pretty sure the Internet is much the way I found it, are you having a bad day? Did you see my other comment? Much dumber apparently.
Cars with carbs and automatics ran just fine. If you had a pile of shit you did not maintain, sure there were problems. And since when do cars not start when in Neutral?
As an ’80s kid that spent a good chunk of my childhood in a Regatta Blue ’87 LX wagon, I have a deep, almost irrational, love for the Taurus. My entire life I’ve been on the hunt for a Taurus MT-5, a wagon especially. It’s my White Whale. I have yet to see one in person, running or otherwise. That this blip of automotive history has finally gotten the attention it so richly deserves from this esteemed crew of auto writers made my day.
I love how Mercedes linked to the MT-5 we were JUST discussing yesterday…
Clearly we were her inspiration.
I had to wonder about that, seriously…
How nice it would be to have cars like the 1st or 2nd gen Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable as modern-day EVs
Nothing fancy – No big screens – no self-driving (well, maybe BlueCruise and Bluetooth)
Just simple, handsome, aerodynamic, comfortable sedans and wagons.
The Taurus wagon with the stick and four-cylinder was probably the most reliable Taurus, given the rather frail AXOD automatic transmission and the notorious headgasket-eating 3.8L Essex V6.
That being said, the current wagon of my dreams is currently something like a 5-speed Mazda Protegé5 or perhaps a BMW E46 wagon with a stick.
I was keeping an eye on a very rust-free Protegé5 across the country as a second car (and a rehash of my first car love); but sheer distance probably saved me $6-7k for what would mostly end up being a driveway occupier.
Right, right….Taurus. Sorry about the digression.
Let’s continue the digression, LOL:
I drove a Protege 5 stick for about two years (it was an ’02) from 07-09. It fit my 6’3″ frame and ferried my 2 kids (3 and 7) here and there in comfort. The previous owner really took care of it and had installed sway bars and a TRW shortshift kit. Even the guy at the DMV inspection lane here in NJ did a double-take and commented on how nice the clutch and shifter worked. What a fun little wagon; on and off ramps were invitations to double (or more) the posted speed limit! I even tried to find another one about 4 years later as nice as what I had, but I settled on a more mature 2006 Mazda6 wagon with the V6 and auto. I still miss that P5!
In the late 80’s our company leased the Taurus as company vehicles with the 4 banger, I can’t even describle how futile it was trying to highway merge at speed. There was one ramp I had to use regularily that was a steep and short uphill and I couldn’t get anywhere near merge speed, it was flat out dangerous.
We flogged the crap out of that fleet blowing out more than a few transmissions and engines.
After a 3 year stint management dropped the Taurus (it was clear how much we hated them) and we got the Chevy Corsica with the V6, not great but a definite improvement.
I was in high school when the Taurus debuted, and was already car obsessed. It’s difficult to state how world-shattering this car was at the time. The best comparison might be to an Apple debut. Every detail was thoughtfully designed. For instance, the rotary controls for the HVAC were a massive improvement over the old and sometimes bewildering sliding lever interfaces.
Would I drive an MT-5 today, sedan or wagon? Heck yes. Slow-car-fast is my jam, and 30mpg in a wagon is still respectable!
In the early ‘oughties I had a Focus wagon (not the hatchback, the true wagon) with a 5-speed and it remains one of my favorite cars ever.
https://itisgood.org/auto-biography/#99Ford
My first brand new car was an ’01 Focus ZX3 hatch with the five speed…I loved that car (and still have it in storage).
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-2001-ford-focus-focusing-on-the-future/
Car and Driver made the SHO wagon of MY dreams (no manual for some reason).
This article has more fluff than the average recipe page but eventually you’ll get past the history lesson and learn about the car itself… https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a36352007/1993-ford-taurus-sho-boss-wagon-by-the-numbers/
My Focus has the MTX manual transmission, and it’s a neat little package for what it is, certainly better than a lot of the manuals GM and Chrysler were using back then in their lower end stuff.
Ford got a bailout from Mazda for their manual transmissions
zoom zoom 😉
Better than any shitty transverse V6 😀
Of course, the MT5 was dropped just as the SHO came out…
“Certainly, you probably wanted to refrain from challenging anything but compacts and diesels.”
So buy an SHO instead, debadge it to look like this pokey thing, then go hunting greater prey.
I’d probably enjoy this more than the far more powerful (but still pretty weak) V6 with slushbox. 2900 is lightweight, but this would still be, what, a 12-second car? As in 12 to 60, not the quarter.
I think manual 4 Camries and Accords were in the 9s.
” I’d still be delighted to see a Chevrolet Trax or a Toyota Corolla slinging a manual.”
Agree. Trax would be fun with a stick. There was a manual Corolla up until a year or so ago but of course our market blew it and didn’t buy it. Got good reviews, and pulled low 7 seconds to 60 in magazine tests.
3rded on the Trax with a stick. I just bought one and it seems like a perfect car for a manual, to eek out any last bit of power from the turbo 3-cylinder. Although it does get thirsty when you drive it spritely.
Probably even slower. My ’83 Subaru sedan was about 13 on a good day with a slightly better power:weight ratio. I think you’re right about the Camrys and Accords, but the far side of the 9s. They were smaller cars, though, and people probably paid more for them OTD.
It didn’t help Corolla manual sales that Toyota doesn’t do special orders and dealers didn’t stock them.
What do you expect from an engine that was only two-thirds of a Ford Falcon straight six?
I can’t help but imagine if they had made a straight-5 out of the straight-6, and just let there be a miss where the sixth cylinder would have been. It would have been par for the course for the quality control of the era.
To be fair to Ford, and a little less facetious, I had a first-gen Fiesta when I was in college, and it was a fantastic little car.
A friend’s parents had an MT-5 back in the day. They really wanted an SHO wagon, but Ford didn’t make one so they settled with what they could get. I don’t think they kept it but a few years, replacing it with a series of V6 Sable wagons until moving up to a Lincoln.
I still remember hearing my friend’s dad talking about his dream of dropping the SHO drivetrain in that MT-5 wagon, even years after they sold it, with my friend’s mom rolling her eyes so hard she almost detached her retinas.
Car and Driver got Ford to do just that with their Billy Wagon IV, I think?
I had to look that up, but I can only imagine the frustration my friend’s dad probably had when/if he saw that one-off SHO wagon. Glorious.
When I consider how tepid the 82hp of my little 1.6L 1989 Mercury Tracer was….
…but slow car fast can be fun too.
I was a Ford tech from ’98-’01 and I got to drive an MT-5 wagon. Even back then I appreciated oddball cars and weird variations so it was notable to me, even if the actual driving experience definitely wasn’t.
I’m mostly surprised that a MT-5 wagon was still being brought to a Ford dealer for service by ’98, given it was the ‘value edition’ version of a thankless hauler.
I can’t remember what it was in for, but at the time I was working in the “BDF” department – Brakes, Differentials, and Ford-o-matics.
Kind of too bad they never made an SHO wagon…..with a 5 speed manual.
I have irrational love for the Taurus, probably because they were about the most comfortable thing I got to sit in when I was a kid.
I like to think my love for them is fairly rational. It’s hard to state how radical they were when they first arrived on the market back then. For the first time, we got to have “Euro” styling on stuff that wasn’t high end/everyone could afford.
I guess more compared to the traditional love for vehicles that are decidedly mainstream versus cars that are “special”.
Most of my experience with these Taurii was in the early to mid-90s, and even then they were comfortable, dependable, and looked nice. And badly beat the hell out of what GM and Chrysler were foisting upon people at the time.
I’m right there with you, though I have to admit as comfortable as the Taurus was, my grandfather’s ’79 Continental Town Car had it beat for pure passenger comfort.
That’s a rolling lounge with literal pillows for seats so, yeah that’s more than fair, lol.
We had an ’87 5 speed sedan growing up, bought new.
I had always thought it was a V6, but that combo doesn’t seem to have been possible, so it was almost surely an MT5. My dad wouldn’t have settled for the ultra cheapskate model, although he was cheap enough to shift his own gears in those days.
I was also thinking that I would have sworn I’ve seen an MT-5 in a Pull-A-Part yard with the 3.0 in it. I might have been mistaken.
Maybe it was a Tempo?
https://testdrivejunkie.com/1992-ford-tempo-v6-5-spd-test-drive/
This comes so close to being the North American car with exactly what I’ve been looking for, but I hear Chevy will let me option a Celebrity wagon with most of the same features as the Eurosport, so I’ll have to cross shop
I mean look, Ford has seen where we’re going. And they’ve heard us loud and clear. They’ve seen the future and now the future is here.
If they had seen the future that is today, it would have been nice of them to do something to prevent it.
Make sure you take your boss golfing so you can spend the entire round listening to him try and convince you to buy a Celebrity.
At the end of the day, I’m more of a Mopar guy, maybe I should just run the ’76 Fury through Earl Scheib, get a few more years out of it, there’s rumors Chrysler’s got something big in the pipeline
You can get an Aries wagon with a manual, have you considered that option for your family hauling needs?
Nice to hear that America’s not going to get pushed around anymore.
I can not imagine how slow an MT-5 wagon would be with a full compliment of 5 human shaped meat sacks and a cargo area full of their accoutrements for a weekend getaway.
I can but I lived that era. Every car in the 80’s was slow – even the exotics.
Having the manual helped though as at the time most automatics were 3 speed.
As commuters and grocery getters they were plenty fast enough.
I’d have preferred progress since then to focus even more on maximizing fuel efficiency, reliability and lower NVH than prioritizing power output since that power was mostly used to enable bigger, heavier pickup trucks and SUVs. The power also enables idiots to use those bigger, heavier vehicles in more dangerous ways while passing on the brunt of the consequences to whoever gets in the way.
As would I. However, we have seen vehicle get faster, larger, safer, and more fuel efficient over time. Massive gains in all from the 80’s even with the more than decade of fuel economy stagnation and then decline in the 90’s when CAFE was paused and fines dropped.
Absolutely vast improvements in safety, fuel economy and power have been made. And some of the weight I’m complaining about have come from safety improvements.
I think though manufacturers could have minimized that bloat while keeping the gains as Mazda famously has done with the MX-5, which is especially impressive for such a small car from such a small manufacturer. It Mazda can do it why can’t Ford or GM?
At the core it is because US buyers want larger cars. The downsizing in the 80’s was not market driven. It was a reaction to CAFE and at the time the primary way to make a car more fuel efficient was to make it smaller.
I think Toyota is the champion of avoiding bloat while improving a car. They have keep the Toyota Corolla the same 102 cu ft for two decades. Still a compact car while all their competitors have grown. Fuel economy jumped from 25 mpg to 34 mpg. It is 1/3 cheaper adjusting for median household income. HP jumped from 105 to 169 hp.
For those that want to take efficiency over HP there is the 138 hp Hybrid rated at 47 mpg that is still cheaper than the base 1995 Corolla.
Americans want endless Hometown Buffets too but that doesn’t mean it’s good for them.
Just like with emissions and CAFE at some point the government needs to step in before the consequences of this binging really catch up.
(although its arguable the government is way too late for that)
“I think Toyota is the champion of avoiding bloat while improving a car.”
At least a few managed to practice some self restraint.
I learned to drive on a contemporary A-body wagon with the Iron Duke and 3 speed automatic. That car was indeed slow as molasses on a cold morning. Even with only a driver and a few gallons of gas on board. Oh, gas was often under $1/gallon in the days these cars were made. A lot of gas stations had signs that had a permanent $1. They were in trouble when gas went to $2+ a gallon.
The permanent $1s themselves were probably a way to get another decade or so out of a sign frame built back when gas even reaching a buck a gallon was unthinkable.
8.
Another choice for those who wanted a stickshift 7-passenger vehicle in this era would have been a Caravan/Voyager with the 2.2 I-4. It would probably lose to the MT-5 in a drag race.
Oh and the Aerostar!!! I just remembered that my neighbor had a base base base ass Aerostar with the 4cyl and a manual trans. White with tan interior, steel wheels and no poverty caps.
Slow, but fine enough around town as they had decent low end torque. Yesterday’s 88 hp isn’t the same as that would be in a car today. They didn’t have the technology to allow high rpm breathing without compromising drivability and low end power, so they were tuned for power at the lower speeds people actually drove them around town, unlike today’s cars that advertise peak hp from high rpm that would be undersized in displacement to advertise mileage numbers nobody would actually get and feel much slower in everyday driving due to a lack of torque. That Taurus hp peak was around 4400 rpm, so it would have driven more like short shifting a car with 135 hp at 6500 rpm (167 with a flat torque curve, but that wouldn’t be the case, so I took the torque of about 105 at peak hp, stretched that curve, and rounded up slightly and I think that would be about right). Plus, almost everything was slow then, so it wasn’t like you had needledicks in lifted RAMs with 700 hp tailgating you as you floored it onto a highway.
Could you get the Yamaha version of the engine and put it into the manual wagon?
I seem to remember an old article about the potential of an SHO wagon. I can’t remember if it was Ford that built it or an enthusiast, but I do remember it being red, a rear 3/4 photo angle, and in an old magazine.
Car & Driver-https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a36352007/1993-ford-taurus-sho-boss-wagon-by-the-numbers/&ved=2ahUKEwifyOPI3cOWAxW2D1kFHQ5nMHEQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0tm3jTyhP4X1TY9jvMX5TV
You’d have to swap the whole front cradle as the engine and Trans are different, you’ll also need the ECU, and probably the dash from SHO to make it all come together. An SHO wagon would be a fun Frankenstein project, made easier if you started with the 5-MT as you already have the third pedal and shifter hole in place.
I believe Car and Driver did just this in 1993. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a36352007/1993-ford-taurus-sho-boss-wagon-by-the-numbers/
Yes! This! I think they even got *Ford* itself to do the job!
LS swap it instead!
There have been a few DIY SHO wagons, even a Sable SHO wagon. Like with all garage projects, YMMV with the completeness and quality of the modifications.